Why some avoid the "weak atheist" moniker...

[Soul Invictus]

Many posters embrace the "weak" atheist stance. I've noticed that some "strong" atheist proponents as well as theists don't view the weak atheist approach as sufficient. I think the weak atheist label gets a bum rap because of the connotations of said adjective. Weak usually implies a deficiency for sustenance or an inadequacy....an inability to thrive. Strength on the other hand is bold and viewed as a positive attribute. I don't even see how strong or weak are appropriate terms for differentiating the two thoughts anyway. To lack a belief in God is not a weak position. To assert that no God exists is not a strong stance either.

I'm looking for competing adjectives that might do the terms justice, however declarative implies strength as non-commital implies weak. Any thoughts on more appropriate monikers?

[trendkill]

I've noticed the same thing--"weak" is not a quality that people respect or that you want to attribute to yourself. That I don't generally believe in certainty doesn't mean there's anything weak about my stance on theism. I usually try not to worry about the strong and weak labels, and just call myself an atheist.

If someone pulls out the old canard about atheism requiring religion-style faith, I just explain to them that while this is technically possible, most atheists, including myself, have no use for this kind of faith, and tell them the things I do have faith in (that logic holds and that my sense data are generally accurate). Then I point out that these beliefs are virtually inescapable, are common to all viewpoints (including theirs), and do not require a leap of faith in the religious sense.

[Jeremy_the _Atheist]

Instead of weak atheist, I use one of two terms

Agnostic atheist: Doesn't believe in the existence of god(s) as the existence of such is unproven.

Non-cognitive atheist: does not recognize the proposition "God exists" as having any meaning. That is, does not recognize that anything is communicated by the phrase "God exists." The non-cognitive atheist thinks this because there is no clear definition of the word god, or any of the words commonly used to describe god, i.e., spirit, supernatural (God is often defined as a supernatural or a spirit being but this has no meaning until a clear intelligible definition for spirit or supernatural is given. To say that the spirit or supernatural is the immaterial only tells what it is not and so answers nothing. For example defining a tree as "something that is not an automobile" does nothing to improve one's understanding of what a tree actually is. Also, no clear distinction has been made between the immaterial and the nonexistent.)

I feel these are good terms because the word agnostic does not carry the same stigma as atheist and using it before atheist kind of lessons the stigma. I refer to myself as a non-cognitive. After explaining what it means, only the profoundly ignorant would consider that position to be one that required faith. Also, although people might disagree with me on my decision to not believe in god, they can hardly call me dishonest for taking this stance.

I pretty much stick to the term strong atheist though.

[sodium]

I think the weak/strong division creates as much confusion as it clears up. If you have no opinion on whether God exists or not, I'm not sure you need a name. We could call you an agnostic, but on most questions, there just isn't a special name for the undecideds. Some people are fiscal conservatives, and some people are fiscal liberals, and still others are fiscal moderates, but if you don't have a clue who's right, your position isn't given a name. But anyway, we have the name "agnostic" for such people on the God issue.

If you think God doesn't exist, but aren't absolutely sure, well, then you still believe God doesn't exist. So you're a strong atheist. You might not be as sure as others. But again, there's no word for people who think fiscal conservatism is correct, but are a little worried it isn't, because there's no point in pretending that such people follow a separate ideology.

So I say you either think God exists, you think he doesn't or you think neither of these thoughts. We should have a convenient way to put people in the appropriate category between these three, or at least between the first two. But trying to split up these categories based on degree of conviction or some semantic distinction isn't useful.

But I suspect I'm in the minority on this.

Anyway, how about moderate and extreme? That could be amusing.

[sodium]

Originally posted by Jeremy_the _Atheist
I refer to myself as a non-cognitive.
I think I'd rather refer to myself as weak than non-cognitive. Weak makes me sound like I could stand to do a few more push-ups. Non-cognitive sounds like my doctor is recommending withdrawing life support.

I'm thinking that if we compared the world I envision as a strong atheist, and the world you envision as a non-cognitive atheist, that they would be pretty much the same world. Our only difference is over how we define "God", a concept that doesn't refer to anything in either of our world-views.

[trendkill]

I believe the word describing someone who believes in noncognitivism should be "noncognitivist", rather than "noncognitive".

[Jeremy_the _Atheist]

I'm thinking that if we compared the world I envision as a strong atheist, and the world you envision as a non-cognitive atheist, that they would be pretty much the same world. Our only difference is over how we define "God", a concept that doesn't refer to anything in either of our world-views.

I'd say that's probably pretty accurate. I just don't have any definition at all of the word god.

The point of the non-cognitive position is that illustrates the futility of religion. Before we can even start talking about the burden of proof, first we must establish what it is that we are trying to prove. Since no one seems to be able to say what is meant by the word god, it's pointless endevour.

[orpheus last chant]

Originally posted by Jeremy_the _Atheist


Non-cognitive atheist: does not recognize the proposition "God exists" as having any meaning. That is, does not recognize that anything is communicated by the phrase "God exists." The non-cognitive atheist thinks this because there is no clear definition of the word god, or any of the words commonly used to describe god, i.e., spirit, supernatural (God is often defined as a supernatural or a spirit being but this has no meaning until a clear intelligible definition for spirit or supernatural is given. To say that the spirit or supernatural is the immaterial only tells what it is not and so answers nothing. For example defining a tree as "something that is not an automobile" does nothing to improve one's understanding of what a tree actually is. Also, no clear distinction has been made between the immaterial and the nonexistent.)


That's me.
I also used a slightly easier explanation for strong and weak (people always asked what it's all about):

Weak: There is insufficient evidence for the existance of God(s)
.
Strong: There is sufficient insufficient evidence to rationally conclude there are/is no god(s). The concepts of non-interviening and completely separate from reality gods, as well as those that are defined as leaving no proof for their existance in the material realm are irrelevant.
For a comparison, see "the matrix world" hypothesis.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Well, as far as the term "atheist" goes, what's the difference between "holding no beliefs in a god or gods," and concluding, "no god or gods exist?"

It's all in the way you phrase it that theists latch onto, so just don't phrase it poorly.

I have examined the evidence and concluded that the theist burden of proof for their claims has never been met, which means their claim is void of substantive merit. Further, the evidence that has been presented (the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, etc., and personal experience) has been repeatedly and effectively shown to be biased; self-serving; anecdotal; seriously flawed--historically; theologically; biologically; cosmologically; ontologically; logically; literally; as well as according to the laws of physics and the theory of evolution--contradictory; forged; apologized for; and otherwise unreliable.

As a result, I not only hold no beliefs in a god or gods, I conclude--based on the evidence (or lack thereof)--that no god or gods exist.

That makes me an atheist; without a belief in a god or gods.

The reason the theist doesn't comprehend this (and seeks to cloud the issue, IMO), is that the theist confuses "belief" with "knowledge."

When a theist says, "I believe a god exists," he or she is mentally confusing "belief" with "knowlegde," thus it becomes the equivalent of saying, "I know a god exists."

When an atheist, however, says, "I know a god does not exist," (if ever they so poorly chose those words), then he or she is inherently declaring "I have concluded--based on the evidence--that the theist claim has never been met and therefore void of substance."

For a claim to be "void of substance," it means there is nothing to the claim and therefore nothing about the claim stands. It is as if the claim were never made.

Since claiming "a god exists" is a positive claim, contrary to what was in evidence up until the point such a claim was made, if that claim's burden is not fulfilled and that claim is therefore void, it is retroactively void; meaning that the initial claim--the first time such a claim was ever made--is void of substance.

For example; I claim right now that ALKJDFA;LKJ created the universe. I offer no evidence for my claim, beyond the all mighty proclaimation--through me--of ALKJDFA;LKJ that she exists and is the creator.

Now jump ahead two thousand years. Countless books and novels and attestations and preachers and blah, blah, blah have lived and died believing that ALKJDFA;LKJ exists, but what they all are really doing (or have done) is simply reiterating my two thousand year old, unproved claim.

What does all that mean? Simple. ALKJDFA;LKJ does not exist. Until ALKJDFA;LKJ's existence has been proved, then it does not exist (outside of my head). Simply because I claimed it did and two thousand years later, hundreds of millions of subsequent reiterants of my initial claim say it was so, too (and even died because of it), doesn't mean jackshit (beyond indoctrination into the cult of ALKJDFA;LKJ).

The only reason this is an issue is because the word "God" has been in the human lexicon for thousands of years and has therefore been merely accepted as a possible concept, so to put it all in perspective, just substitute one unproved claim with another (ALKJDFA;LKJ) and you've got your answer.

"Weak" and "Strong" are pointless qualifications; an unnecessary delineation of human language.

If you are "without a belief in a god or gods" that means you have concluded from the evidence that such a claim's burden was never met, which in turn effectively means that no such creatures as claimed exist and you are, therefore, an atheist.

Here, let me again explode the example so you see what I mean. If you are "without a belief in a ALKJDFA;LKJ or ALKJDFA;LKJs" that means you have concluded from the evidence that such a claim's burden was never met, which in turn means that no such creatures as claimed exist and you are, therefore, an a-ALKJDFA;LKJist.

Now do you see the distinction? If there is a claim that "something exists" and all of the evidence provided to support that claim is demonstrably false and/or unreliable, then the substance of that claim is void. There is therefore every reason (other than irrelevant semantics) to conclude that "something" does not exist.

If you have concluded the theist burden of proof can still be proved, but hasn't yet, then you have a belief in a god or gods to some degree (however indirect it may be) and are therefore "agnostic."

There is absolutely no need to deconstruct these terms into subcategories. One is "atheist;" "agnostic;" or "theist;" one is without a belief in a god or gods; one is unsure about their belief in a god or gods; one believes in a god or gods.

It doesn't have to be any more complicated than that, so long as one simply applies a greater understanding of the pointless foibles human language is err to (:D).